Kolkata Court November 1906 Judgments
Shamul Dhone Dutt Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal30
Brett, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 574 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and fined Rs. 50 for not carrying out certain improvements to a busti, of which he is the owner. The busti in question is situated in Lower Chitpore Road in the corner of Colootollah.2. It appears that a report was made to the Commissioners so long ago as the 4th August 1904, stating that the busti was in an insanitary condition, and after due inquiries had been made, a notice was first served on the petitioner as the owner of the busti under Section 406 of the Act on the 28th Decern!er 1904. On the 2nd January. 1905 the petitioner by a letter objected to the notice, stating that the property had been leased out by him on a 40 years' lease to other persons, who had agreed, during the term of the lease, to erect buildings of the value of a lac of rupees; and he urged that the service of notice ought to have been made on them. On the 1st May 1905 the Municipality served another notice on the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Sanyal Vs. Anukul Chandra Acharjya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal65
Francis William Maclean, C.J.1. The facts material for the decision of the present appeal may he thus shortly stated. One Mati Pramanick executed a kistbundi bond in favour of the plaintiff. Mati died. He left an adult son Tamij Pramanick, a minor son Pauchoo Pramanick, his widow Billoo Bibi, and a daughter named Sakhi Bibi. The case is governed by Mahomedan law, and they were his heirs and heiresses. Before the institution of a suit by the plaintiff, to which I will refer in a moment, Tamij Pramanick and the widow Billoo Bibi, acting not only for herself, but purporting to act as guardian of her minor son Panchoo, sold the property now in dispute to defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Subsequently to this transfer and purchase, the plaintiff instituted a suit to enforce his bond and he was successful in the Appellate Court. He then sought to execute that decree as a creditor against the property, which is now in dispute; but by reason of an objection, which was raised by the present defendants No...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›